The rise of Extremism in Economically tough times

N1AK

Seabee42 wrote: »

in fact GPD per capita has been falling in the UK for a while, because the immigrants are only in general only taking low pay jobs and not increasing the economy.

GDP per capita was increasing rapidly until 2008 when it dropped off a cliff. UK immigration was high throughout the 2000s and plateaued from around 2004 to 2011.

You can hate immigration, foreigners, whatever as much as you want but lets not start making up blatant lies to blame them for things the data very obviously shows is nonsense.

jamesmorgan

antrobus wrote: »

Well yes, even Norway, the largest of the EFTA-EEA members, only has a population of 5 million, versus 500 million for the EU, so it isn't much of a fight.

The capability to "negotiate the EFTA" is neither here nor there. It's the EEA that matters. It is what it is. Either you sign up to it, and accept the four freedoms, or you don't.

Actually Switzerland is the largest country in the EFTA by GDP. It has chosen not to join the EEA but to negotiate its own trade agreements with the EU. If UK, Sweden and Denmark all move back into the EFTA it would be up to them how they negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the EU. Even if they decide to progress down the EEA route, everything is negotiable. That's the real world. Your ability to get your own way depends on your negotiating power. A block of Scandinavia, UK and Switzerland would have a combined GDP of around $4.5b compared with $13b for the rest of the EU. Not exactly equal, but a lot more equal than the current position. I suspect we may have more power than we currently do within the EU as we are often one voice against 27.

I'm not necessarily saying this is the best route for the UK, but it is a viable route if we decide not to be part of the EU integration project.

danothy

antrobus wrote: »

The idea of creating a 'United States of Europe' has been there from the get-go, even as far back as when it was the European Coal and Steel Community, so I don't believe anything has actually "changed". What does change is the enthusiasm expressed by various parties towards taking the next step in the project, and the extent to which other parties believe anyone is actually serious about it.

Often I see comments about the coming together of the European continent that seem to implicitly have within them the implication that closer union is a bad thing inherently. Being a fan of Star Trek, I can't really see what people have against efforts to unite people on a global scale.

antrobus

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Actually Switzerland is the largest country in the EFTA by GDP. It has chosen not to join the EEA but to negotiate its own trade agreements with the EU.

Yes, I know. That's why I referred to Norway, as "the largest of the EFTA-EEA members". That's because Switzerland isn't an EFTA-EEA member.

jamesmorgan wrote: »

... If UK, Sweden and Denmark all move back into the EFTA it would be up to them how they negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the EU. Even if they decide to progress down the EEA route, everything is negotiable. ...

Even if the UK, Sweden and Denmark were to leave the EU and successfully apply to join EFTA, that would not effect their membership of the EEA. Which is a separate treaty.

jamesmorgan wrote: »

..
That's the real world. Your ability to get your own way depends on your negotiating power. A block of Scandinavia, UK and Switzerland would have a combined GDP of around $4.5b compared with $13b for the rest of the EU. Not exactly equal, but a lot more equal than the current position. I suspect we may have more power than we currently do within the EU as we are often one voice against 27.

I'm not necessarily saying this is the best route for the UK, but it is a viable route if we decide not to be part of the EU integration project.

Well your figures on GDP are wrong. UK GDP on its own is more like $2500 bn. (I'm assuming that you mean US$.)

Seabee42

N1AK wrote: »

GDP per capita was increasing rapidly until 2008 when it dropped off a cliff. UK immigration was high throughout the 2000s and plateaued from around 2004 to 2011.

You can hate immigration, foreigners, whatever as much as you want but lets not start making up blatant lies to blame them for things the data very obviously shows is nonsense.

Yeah that was debt based growth as we saw completely sustainable. I did not say I was blaming them, however there is now evidence that GDP per capita increased as a result of immigration in this country during that period.

Blatant lies ha can see you must be getting rich on the back of immigration.

Seabee42

danothy wrote: »

Often I see comments about the coming together of the European continent that seem to implicitly have within them the implication that closer union is a bad thing inherently. Being a fan of Star Trek, I can't really see what people have against efforts to unite people on a global scale.

Okay lets assume we all had the same legal rules on everything so broadly speaking competition would be fair right? So what about a country that has cheaper energy due to natural supplies or cheaper transport costs due to location? There is not easy way to have a level playing field and the EU is very far from that.

jamesmorgan

antrobus wrote: »

Yes, I know. That's why I referred to Norway, as "the largest of the EFTA-EEA members". That's because Switzerland isn't an EFTA-EEA member.

Yes, I understand that. The point I was making was that larger countries are move likely to be able to negotiate their own bi-lateral agreements.

Even if the UK, Sweden and Denmark were to leave the EU and successfully apply to join EFTA, that would not effect their membership of the EEA. Which is a separate treaty.

Everything is negotiable.

Well your figures on GDP are wrong. UK GDP on its own is more like $2500 bn. (I'm assuming that you mean US$.)

Yes, sorry, 'b' should have read 't' (Trillion)

jamesmorgan

danothy wrote: »

Often I see comments about the coming together of the European continent that seem to implicitly have within them the implication that closer union is a bad thing inherently. Being a fan of Star Trek, I can't really see what people have against efforts to unite people on a global scale.

There is nothing inherently wrong. The main concern seem to be about loss of identity/culture. It is interesting that since 1990, 34 new countries have been formed (quite a few out of a total of around 190+). 32 have formed from larger countries splitting into smaller ones, only 2 have formed from mergers (Yemen and Germany). The direction of travel certainly seems to be in the opposite direction. We even see it within the UK with the current debate over Scotland.

antrobus

danothy wrote: »

Often I see comments about the coming together of the European continent that seem to implicitly have within them the implication that closer union is a bad thing inherently. ...

I'd presume that's because they don't like the idea.

danothy wrote: »

...Being a fan of Star Trek, I can't really see what people have against efforts to unite people on a global scale.

I believe that as far as the Star Trek universe is concerned, Earth is a member of the United Federation of Planets. But I'm not sure that it was ever explained precisely what the constitutional arrangements were in regard to the planet Earth. I'm therefore not convinced that there is a model there to be followed.

antrobus

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Yes, I understand that. The point I was making was that larger countries are move likely to be able to negotiate their own bi-lateral agreements....

Yes, Switzerland has its own bi-lateral agreements with the EU. Apparently there are around 100 of them. Many of them oblige Switzerland to adopt relevant EU legislation. Since I haven't read all 100 agreements (and I'm not going to either ) I don't know to what extent Switzerland has actually got a deal with the EU that's any different from the one that it would have got had it signed up to the EEA, or even joined the EU.

I strongly suspect that no one else knows either. Because they haven't read the 100 agreements either. So whilst it's possible to point to Switzerland as an example of a country that has negotiated its own deal with the EU/EEA, it does not necessarily follow that there would be anything to be gained by following their example.

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Everything is negotiable.

So it is. But the general rule is, if you want something (we'd like to renegotiate the EEA please) you have to give something in return. Thus it is the party that wants the change that ends up paying.